🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following Celtic released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief short statement, the howitzer arrived, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

In 551-words, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he convinced to join the team when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and needed putting back in a box. And the man he once more turned to after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of his critique, the astonishing return of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an continuous circuit of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on comments he has expressed recently, he has been keen to get a new position. He'll view this one as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly make a call to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the brutal way Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," wrote he.

For a person who prizes decorum and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was another example of how unusual things have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to make all the important calls he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He never attend club annual meetings, dispatching his son, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the organization with private messages to media organisations, but nothing is made in public.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And it's exactly what he went against when launching all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The directive from the club is that he resigned, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to reach this far down the line?

Assuming the manager is culpable of all of the accusations that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why had been the coach not removed?

He has charged him of spinning information in public that did not tally with the facts.

He claims his statements "played a part to a toxic environment around the club and fuelled animosity towards members of the management and the board. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we discuss.

His Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to better days, they were tight, the two men. The manager lauded Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan respected Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

This was the figure who took the criticism when his comeback happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, achieved the victories and the honors, and an fragile peace with the supporters became a love-in once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' goals came in contact with Celtic's business model, however.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with bells on, over the last year. He spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - all of whom have cut it so far, with one already having departed - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity inside the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his next media briefing he would usually downplay it and almost contradict what he stated.

Internal issues? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a dangerous strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly came from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that the manager was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

He desired not to be there and he was arranging his exit, this was the tone of the article.

The fans were enraged. They then viewed him as akin to a martyr who might be carried out on his shield because his directors did not support his plans to bring success.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be dismissed. Whether there was a probe then we learned no more about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the support of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes